Vermont Public Utility Commission members were in the area Friday to hear in-person public comment on a controversial 20-megawatt solar generating facility proposed in Shaftsbury.
Commissioners Margaret Cheney, J. Riely Allen and Chairman Anthony Roisman listened to comments and often passionate statements from a succession of speakers. Approximately 40 people attended the evening hearing, which was held in the auditorium at Mount Anthony Union High School.
A planned afternoon visit Friday to the proposed 83-acre project site off Holy Smoke Road in Shaftsbury was canceled because of forecast of thunderstorms and possible flooding, which did not materialize. The commission intends to reschedule that visit.
100-PLUS COMMENTS
The Public Utility Commission is reviewing an application for a required certificate of public good permit for the solar facility, filed in May by the developer, VT Real Estate Holdings 1 LLC.
“We’ve already received over a hundred public comments related to this project,” Roisman said at the start of the hearing. “It is extremely important that we understand the issues that you think we should address and your perspectives on those issues. Our job is to make sure that the record that we made before we make a decision is a full and complete as possible.”
He noted that comments can be made during Public Utility Commission meetings or via email or mail. Information on that aspect of the process — as well on documents or petitions filed in the case and commission determinations — can be found on the ePUC document management site.
The Shaftsbury Solar project case number is 23-1447-PET. Information, including a PUC calendar of meetings, also can be found on the commission’s website.
DIVIDED OPINION
As at prior local meetings about the project, a majority — but not all of the speakers were against the project and urged its rejection.
Comments also veered into philosophical questions at times concerning whether renewable solar energy is the best, or even a good or viable way, to address the state’s electricity needs or the climate changes exacerbated by the use of fossil fuels to generate power.
Some urged promoting biodiversity and preserving natural habitats to regulate heat and climate over technology-based approaches that focus on cleaner power generation.
They said cutting down trees and mining for the materials that are used in solar panels offset the benefits of solar power.
“Here in Vermont, our nature is our wealth,” said Judith Schwartz, “and we undermine that at our own peril, so that really concerns me.”
She said the disruption of the site during construction and “the fragmentation of [wildlife] habitat” by the resulting array is a known concern in Vermont relative to the decline of many species, such as birds.
“And this is an Exhibit A of fragmenting habitat,” Schwartz said, “and so I would say we should really think about that very seriously.”
Noting Vermont’s goal of obtaining nearly all energy from renewable energy by 2050, Tony Eprile said, “We also have to really consider the great importance of biodiversity, the natural world and the processes that the natural world is engaging in in regulating heat and climate.”
He added that “a project where the natural land has to be destroyed to provide what goes under the rubric of green energy concerns me greatly. I think that balance has to really be looked at because there are many alternative ways of providing solar energy.”
Voicing support for the project, Wayn Goodman noted that several speakers had talked about the environmental impacts, and added, “I think it would be helpful for them to think about what the environmental impact is” of propane or hydro generating plants if solar sites are not being added in Vermont.
As someone who works in the energy field, Goodman said he trusts that the developer’s plan will be able to meet state regulation for solar projects, adding, “I haven’t seen a project in my professional career that is a better fit for getting us a big step forward” in reducing fossil fuel power generation.
“I’ve never seen a site that was better sited or better located for an efficient project than this one … this one is a perfect space to build solar,” he said.
PROJECT SIZE
The sheer size and visibility of the project — covering about 83 acres between Route 7 and Holy Smoke Road — has sparked considerable criticism.
Kit Ausschnitt, of Holy Smoke Road, was one of the speakers who questioned the size of the array, which would be one of the largest in Vermont and roughly 10 times larger than any facility operating or planned in Southern Vermont, which are in the 2 megawatt capacity range or smaller.
“The main thing that struck me immediately was the incredible inappropriateness of this project. I live across the street from it,” he said, referring to the beauty of the land as it now exists.
Ausschnitt said, “the scale of this relative to the landscape is simply idiotic. So I asked the question earlier, why 20 megawatts; why do you have to do 20. Why not 15, 10, five?”
Dr. Michael Algus, of Holy Smoke Road, said he would like to see an impartial aesthetics review of the project’s impacts.
“When you do the site visit, I want you to be aware that right now there is a lot of brush will be up,” he said, “but that is really only during the summer, and we will be looking at this 12 months a year.”
Concerning stormwater runoff, he added that “it wouldn’t take very much more water to flood Holy Smoke Road.”
Dan Delurey said most of the prior comments about the project lacked the context of climate change, terming solar “one of the few ways we have in addressing climate change and preventing as best as we can. Not just one solar project, but we need a whole heck of a lot of solar projects.”
He added, “They have to go somewhere, whether here or somewhere else; that is part of the job of you as regulators to decide what is a good project, what is a good site … I just think we have to take a step back and remember why it is we are talking about solar energy.”
Farmer Jesse McDougall, of Holy Smoke Road, one of the founders of the group Stop Shaftsbury Solar, said his Studio Hill Farm uses regenerative farm practices to restore land degraded over the years by traditional agricultural practices.
“I’m concerned about the ecological degradation proposed by this project,” he said.
The role of Vermonters in the battle against climate change — in an area with limited solar generation sites — should be “to protect and regenerate the ecological function that we are blessed to have, and I would argue, we are charged to protect,” McDougall said.
SITE VISIT CONCERNS
Rep. Mary Morrissey, R-Bennington, said she was disappointed that the Public Utility Commission site visit Friday was canceled because participants “can see something very different, very real on the property, other than the pretty pictures you see on the screen.”
She asked whether there will be another site visit and public hearing scheduled, saying her concern is “we are doing one piece of this — it’s almost like putting the cart before the horse.”
Roisman said the commission will schedule a future site visit but doesn’t plan to hold another in-person hearing that day, although he said a remote hearing could be held if one is requested.
Morrissey also asked whether a July 28 deadline for filing to become a formal intervenor in the Shaftsbury Solar case could be pushed back past the as-yet unscheduled site visit.
Roisman said any member of the public can request that the filing date be change, but currently it remains the 28th, adding, “If [a request] is filed with us, we will consider it as soon as we can.”
At the conclusion of the hearing, Roisman said the commission’s goal is “to ensure that the record is complete” as it moves toward a decision on Shaftsbury Solar.
He encouraged people to continue to discuss the project and to use the ePUC portal, which “is always open,” to offer comment or ideas.
“So please, stay involved,” he said. “It makes our job much more fruitful and more likely to be successful.”
PROJECT PRESENTATION
Prior to the Public Utility Commission hearing, the project contractor, SunEast Development, and other representatives of the developer provided a presentation on the Shaftsbury Solar plan, hosted by the state Department of Public Service.
F. Reed Wills, chief operating officer of SunEast, and Jeff Nelson of the project designer team, VHB, said the proposal includes creation of berms and other screening to lessen the visual impact of the arrays.
They said the plan, which was revised based on citizen comments, also calls for preserving 57 acres of forestland on the overall 182-acre parcel to balance the required tree cutting.
The proposal also includes planting vegetation beneath the ground-mounted panels to reduce erosion and stormwater runnoff to meet state Department of Environmental Conservation standards, they said.
The developers also plan to replace an aging section of town water line that runs below the site with modern piping.
Nelson said the developer has conceptual design approval from state transportation officials to add a temporary exit from Route 7, a divided highway, to directly access the solar site and reduce truck traffic during construction along the narrow Holy Smoke Road, a gravel road.
